Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

[Walton 46]

Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising
On Friday, the consultation on the Liverpool City Region's proposed franchising scheme began. The consultation will run till August 3rd and can be accessed here: https://www.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.u...esforward/

[moreton407]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising
I have read with interest, the leaflet that has been pushed through my door in the last week or so....

Some of the big costs of franchising would cost £341m, £252m investment in buses, £62m investment in bus depots and £27m to change over to franchising......

And where do they get the money for this.....

Transport Levy from local councils - so council tax.
Mayoral Precept - this is the additional charge residents pay to the combined authority - so council tax.
Mersey Tunnel Tolls - Will tolls go up in order to pay for this? And i was under an impression from many years ago that once the
debt of building the tunnel etc was paid back then the tolls would be abolished?
Government funding - so more taxes.

I rarely use public transport these days but am i going to better off by a franchised system?

[CUL 73V]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(24/06/2023 15:33)moreton407 Wrote:  I have read with interest, the leaflet that has been pushed through my door in the last week or so....

Some of the big costs of franchising would cost £341m, £252m investment in buses, £62m investment in bus depots and £27m to change over to franchising......

And where do they get the money for this.....

Transport Levy from local councils - so council tax.
Mayoral Precept - this is the additional charge residents pay to the combined authority - so council tax.
Mersey Tunnel Tolls - Will tolls go up in order to pay for this? And i was under an impression from many years ago that once the
debt of building the tunnel etc was paid back then the tolls would be abolished?
Government funding - so more taxes.

I rarely use public transport these days but am i going to better off by a franchised system?

Nobody will be. The fares will probably be the same as they are now, but with more expensive council tax to subsidise it. Even if you use the buses regularly, that's a poor deal. As for buying more buses to lease to operators, the ones they've bought so far don't work and won't be in service for at least another three months. Being the pilot customer of a completely new type, especially one this complex, is very poor practice. At least TfGM had the sense to order a proven product.

Let's be honest here, franchising is about LCR's powers that be wanting more control. Franchised buses offer no benefit to the taxpayer. None. Then when you factor in the organisation who'd be in charge of said system, that's the real deal breaker. The private sector isn't perfect, but I'd rather have my employer, and other operators, running the system than local politicians.

This is a flight of fancy which the region doesn't need and obviously can't afford. Get it in the bin. Now.

[Metroline1511]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising
Another difference is that, despite the multi-operator tickets, Merseyside has basically 2 main operators while Greater Manchester is more fragmented in terms of which operators serve which areas.

[iMarkeh]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(24/06/2023 16:54)CUL 73V Wrote:  Nobody will be. The fares will probably be the same as they are now, but with more expensive council tax to subsidise it. Even if you use the buses regularly, that's a poor deal. As for buying more buses to lease to operators, the ones they've bought so far don't work and won't be in service for at least another three months. Being the pilot customer of a completely new type, especially one this complex, is very poor practice. At least TfGM had the sense to order a proven product.

Let's be honest here, franchising is about LCR's powers that be wanting more control. Franchised buses offer no benefit to the taxpayer. None. Then when you factor in the organisation who'd be in charge of said system, that's the real deal breaker. The private sector isn't perfect, but I'd rather have my employer, and other operators, running the system than local politicians.

This is a flight of fancy which the region doesn't need and obviously can't afford. Get it in the bin. Now.

See, the good thing about the call for franchising in Merseyside is that the 1 current and 1 former municipal show exactly how franchising will go but the Labour party refuse to acknowledge.

Halton Transport - Went bust due to the council refusing to support it. Labour ran council refusing to support their own public ran company, unheard of. But it happened and we all lived through and saw it. Who picked up the pieces at short notice? Private operators! While much of the network may not remain, that is due to the routes being generally quite quiet or duplicating over other routes.

Warringtons Own Buses - Until very recently had bus fares which were far in excess of private operators. £6 for a day ticket against Arrivas fares at the time of around £5-£5.50. A company who is about as dodgy as HTL. Infact, I don't remember HTL sending out 20 buses without MOT. WOB has consistently poor reliability due to the cross networking which they live by meaning delays in one part of the town massively affects another part of the town for absolutely zero reason other than WOBs stupid way of working. Probably also worth saying that the only reason WOB is still going is because of the school contracts and all schools instantly giving kids touch & go passes which can't be used on other operators (If the school travel pass schemes were the same as other areas and could be used on all operators, WOB would lose a lot of their school trade).
The fact buses plod around the world as well to get from A to B just because municipals have to serve all of the areas. Like the 20/21 serving Orford Hub. Rarely anyone gets on or off. A good 3-4 minute time penalty for serving but they serve it as it's a council building. In no purely private operator market would Orford Hub be served
I think it says a lot when the councils only way of getting people onto WOB is by trying to close off all of the side streets and put in shed loads of bus gates to make it difficult for people to drive. They can't get people onboard normally so they are trying to force them onboard. Just go onto WOBs Facebook or Twitter and look at the local Facebook groups. There is never so much hatred towards a bus company than WOB and I include Arriva in that!


Politicians refuse to acknowledge the failure of Halton Transport and Warringtons Own Buses because they know damn well that it would jeopardise the whole franchising thing. I mean, if they were good examples, they would be promoting them wouldn't they? At no point has it been said 'Let's have a great public ran bus network like Warrington' because it's seen and proven that it's a mess.

[Barney]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 00:32)iMarkeh Wrote:  See, the good thing about the call for franchising in Merseyside is that the 1 current and 1 former municipal show exactly how franchising will go but the Labour party refuse to acknowledge.

Halton Transport - Went bust due to the council refusing to support it. Labour ran council refusing to support their own public ran company, unheard of. But it happened and we all lived through and saw it. Who picked up the pieces at short notice? Private operators! While much of the network may not remain, that is due to the routes being generally quite quiet or duplicating over other routes.

Warringtons Own Buses - Until very recently had bus fares which were far in excess of private operators. £6 for a day ticket against Arrivas fares at the time of around £5-£5.50. A company who is about as dodgy as HTL. Infact, I don't remember HTL sending out 20 buses without MOT. WOB has consistently poor reliability due to the cross networking which they live by meaning delays in one part of the town massively affects another part of the town for absolutely zero reason other than WOBs stupid way of working. Probably also worth saying that the only reason WOB is still going is because of the school contracts and all schools instantly giving kids touch & go passes which can't be used on other operators (If the school travel pass schemes were the same as other areas and could be used on all operators, WOB would lose a lot of their school trade).
The fact buses plod around the world as well to get from A to B just because municipals have to serve all of the areas. Like the 20/21 serving Orford Hub. Rarely anyone gets on or off. A good 3-4 minute time penalty for serving but they serve it as it's a council building. In no purely private operator market would Orford Hub be served
I think it says a lot when the councils only way of getting people onto WOB is by trying to close off all of the side streets and put in shed loads of bus gates to make it difficult for people to drive. They can't get people onboard normally so they are trying to force them onboard. Just go onto WOBs Facebook or Twitter and look at the local Facebook groups. There is never so much hatred towards a bus company than WOB and I include Arriva in that!


Politicians refuse to acknowledge the failure of Halton Transport and Warringtons Own Buses because they know damn well that it would jeopardise the whole franchising thing. I mean, if they were good examples, they would be promoting them wouldn't they? At no point has it been said 'Let's have a great public ran bus network like Warrington' because it's seen and proven that it's a mess.

You seem to overlooked a few key points here:

1. The legislation for bus franchising was introduced by a Conservative government with the 2017 Buses Act.
2. The examples you have cited as failed operators (Halton and Warrington) were/are in fact arms length operations meaning that the local councils have to compete commercially with competitors.
3. The franchising model gives a single operator a monopoly on specific routes thus reducing overall costs by eradicating wasteful and unnecessary competition.
4. Warrington has just relocated to a brand new state-of -the-art depot is and is about to replace its entire fleet of 105+ buses with EVs, all at the taxpayers' expense.
5. Fares will be lower under franchising.

[T42 PVM (Moderator)]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 08:11)Barney Wrote:  You seem to overlooked a few key points here:

1. The legislation for bus franchising was introduced by a Conservative government with the 2017 Buses Act.
2. The examples you have cited as failed operators (Halton and Warrington) were/are in fact arms length operations meaning that the local councils have to compete commercially with competitors.
3. The franchising model gives a single operator a monopoly on specific routes thus reducing overall costs by eradicating wasteful and unnecessary competition.
4. Warrington has just relocated to a brand new state-of -the-art depot is and is about to replace its entire fleet of 105+ buses with EVs, all at the taxpayers' expense.
5. Fares will be lower under franchising.

On point 5 is that really the case if you are also paying via your Taxes?

[Barney]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 08:38)T42 PVM Wrote:  On point 5 is that really the case if you are also paying via your Taxes?

Which taxes? Taxation come in two forms: direct and indirect. Here are just a few of them: Income Tax, VAT, Capital Gains, National Insurance, Inheritance Tax, Customs and Excise Duty, Stamp Duty, Local Council Tax, Vehicle Tax, Road Tolls.

We'd all love to keep as much of our income and wealth as possible - the super rich seem to manage to do this very successfully - but the reality is that in a functioning society taxation is a necessity.

I think that the question that needs to be asked is how much will any individual or household be asked to contribute towards a franchising model. For some people, any additional cost is unacceptable.

[CUL 73V]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 08:11)Barney Wrote:  3. The franchising model gives a single operator a monopoly on specific routes thus reducing overall costs by eradicating wasteful and unnecessary competition.

So we should remove private sector competition, which doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny, at the expense of the taxpayer? I don't see your logic there.

(25/06/2023 08:11)Barney Wrote:  5. Fares will be lower under franchising.

I'm afraid fares won't be cheaper than they are now. As I and others have said, council tax will be higher, making it a complete false economy. In addition, the huge sum of money LCR have admitted they'd need to borrow for startup costs will have to be repaid. They won't be able to afford to set cheaper fares. It's just spin to make people buy into this utterly ridiculous idea which benefits nobody.

I'll also have to pay towards a service I don't have to pay for as a benefit of my employment. I don't see the logic or fairness in that one.

(25/06/2023 10:09)Barney Wrote:  Which taxes? Taxation come in two forms: direct and indirect. Here are just a few of them: Income Tax, VAT, Capital Gains, National Insurance, Inheritance Tax, Customs and Excise Duty, Stamp Duty, Local Council Tax, Vehicle Tax, Road Tolls.

We'd all love to keep as much of our income and wealth as possible - the super rich seem to manage to do this very successfully - but the reality is that in a functioning society taxation is a necessity.

I think that the question that needs to be asked is how much will any individual or household be asked to contribute towards a franchising model. For some people, any additional cost is unacceptable.

Council tax will have to be increased to pay for franchising. I don't know how many times you need to be told.

In case it's escaped you, we're in a cost of living crisis. The city region quite obviously can't afford this system, otherwise they wouldn't have borrow the money which the taxpayer will have to pay back. You might have money to waste, but a large number of people in this region, including my partner and I who have to provide for our children, don't.

The alternate model of enhanced partnership leaves the financial burden with the private sector. That's the best place for it.

[wirralbus]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 08:11)Barney Wrote:  You seem to overlooked a few key points here:

1. The legislation for bus franchising was introduced by a Conservative government with the 2017 Buses Act.
2. The examples you have cited as failed operators (Halton and Warrington) were/are in fact arms length operations meaning that the local councils have to compete commercially with competitors.
3. The franchising model gives a single operator a monopoly on specific routes thus reducing overall costs by eradicating wasteful and unnecessary competition.
4. Warrington has just relocated to a brand new state-of -the-art depot is and is about to replace its entire fleet of 105+ buses with EVs, all at the taxpayers' expense.
5. Fares will be lower under franchising.

The 2017 buses act was really introduced because the fundamentals of the 1986 changes have long since disappeared alongside most competition , just leaving literally privatised monopolies .

Halton is the only one to have failed , Warrington survived and there interworking may cause instability in there network but it works most of the time and is efficient most of the time .

Interesting to see if the 10 and 10A are operated from one depot or split as two seperate routes , the hydrogen buses will be watched closely .

Fares , this will be a hot potato if it doesnt work out